An Account by Fr. Zakaria Botros
Part 1
Father Zakaria Botros recently ran a show dedicated to answering the question, “Was Muhammad a messenger from God or Satan?” As usual with these shows, viewers were asked to call in and respond to this question, with poll results revealed at the end of the show.
His co-host in this particular show was an ex-Muslim woman turned Christian, who, a few shows earlier, used to still wear a hijab, but not today—as Zakaria Botros put it, in English, her “new look.” She said that such an offensive question—ascertaining the divine or demonic source of Muhammad’s prophethood—would have enraged her in former days, and how, till today even, it makes her feel awkward, uncomfortable. Such was her conditioning.
Botros was quick to respond by saying that it is not he that insults Muhammad but rather Islam’s books. He, once again, insisted that he’s merely a reader, who is bringing to the table what he reads—”So don’t be angry with me!” he says, somewhat tongue in cheek. “If you don’t like it, then go and burn all those books that portray him so and leave me alone!”
He then spent some time making a valid point: that in Islam, it seems that Muhammad’s honor is to be more zealously guarded than even Allah’s. To prove this, he quoted from a famous Arabic manual of law calledKitab Ahkam Al-Koran (“Book of Koranic Rulings”) by the famous scholar al-Jassas: according to this manual, the apostate must not be killed until he has been given several chances to repent and return to Islam. This same book, however, clearly states that whoever offends the name of the prophet (Muhammad) must be killed right where he stands, not given a chance to repent or take back his words.
So, wondered Botros, while the person who offends Allah by essentially rejecting him and trying to break away from his religion gets several chances to repent, not the one who offends Muhammad—thus, according to Botros’ logic, “In Islam, Muhammad has a higher place than Allah.”
As for the question of the show, Botros asked a more pivotal question: how does one differentiate prophets from false prophets? He came up with three prerequisites of prophethood as well as three characteristics of prophets. Today we will examine the prerequisites.
PREREQUISITES:
1.A prophet typically receives direct revelations from God
2.A prophet usually does just that—prophesy, usually about the future
3.A prophet’s claim to prophethood is usually supported by miracles
As for receiving direct revelations from God, Botros provided several examples from the Bible, such as Exodus 3:10, where God not only directly communicates with Moses, but also sends him out on his mission. Likewise, the Koran confirms this, by saying that Allah spoke directly to Moses (4:164).
“So, what about Muhammad?” asked Botros; “Did God speak to him direct? Not at all; instead, he was visited by a creature [that is, a created, lesser being], who Muhammad himself was convinced was a demon or Jinn.” (Botros ran an entire episode revealing the many anecdotes in Islamic tradition that indicate that Muhammad was in fact visited by a Jinni, which I hope to translate shortly).
As for the second prerequisite, prophecy, again Botros provided several examples from the Bible of prophets prophesying, such as Psalms 22: 16, which Christians believe foretells the sufferings of Jesus, by nearly two millennia.
Asked Botros: “So, what prophecy did Muhammad bring?” He then quoted from the Koran verses which plainly indicate that Muhammad had no inkling of the future (see 6:50 and 7:188).
To the third prerequisite of prophethood: miracles. Botros indicated the miracles of Moses (e.g., Ten Plagues) and Jesus (raising the dead), which are recorded in both the Bible and Koran.
“So,” asked again, rather dryly, the Coptic priest, “what miracles did Muhammad perform?”
Here his co-hostess said that, from childhood, she, as a Muslim, was taught that the Koran is the miracle of Islam and Muhammad—to which Botros gave a chuckle, only to implore the viewers to not be angry with him, that he is not laughing in mockery but rather dismay.
He then insisted that discussing the problems of the “divine” Koran are manifold—linguistically, contextually, grammatically, etymologically—and that he had already dedicated several shows examining these problems. “However, let’s let one single Islamic book that exposes this issue suffice for today.”
After giving the title of the book, Haqa’iq Al Islam (“the Truths of Islam”), he boomed: “Quick, leave the TV set, or send your sons to the stores to buy this book, because we all know from previous experience that whatever Islamic book is used as evidence against Islam on this show is often immediately pulled off the market!”
He then read from page 200 of that book: “The Koran is most magnificent and perfect in language and structure; thus, if something appears wrong, it is not the Koran that is wrong but rather our understanding of language. As for obvious problems or contradictions, we are obligated to overlook these, for faith will resolve these matters.”
He also quoted Sunni Islam’s most authoritative institution, Al Azhar, saying “We must always strive to discover why in certain instances the Koran appears to not follow correct Arabic grammar. If we cannot find an answer, however, then we must leave the matter to Allah.”
The co-hostess said that Muslims believe Muhammad performed other miracles, according to the hadith. Botros responded by saying that that is simply another contradiction with the Koran, which flatly declares that even though the people demanded a miracle from Muhammad, the only one he could provide was the Koran:
“They say: We shall not believe in thee, until thou cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth. Or (until) thou have a garden of date trees and vines, and cause rivers to gush forth in their midst, carrying abundant water…. No, we shall not even believe in thy mounting until thou send down to us a book that we could read. Say: Glory to my Lord! Am I aught but a man—a messenger?” (17:90-93).
Part 2
Earlier, Father Zakaria Botros discussed the three prerequisites of prophethood—direct revelation from God, the ability to prophesize, and the ability to perform miracles to support the claim of prophet. Here he discussed the three characteristics of prophethood, which are:
1.Lead a righteous life in order to be a good example before others
2.Make sacrifices for others, not vice-versa
3.Dedicate one’s life to the service of God
For the first characteristic regarding prophethood, Botros opened by quoting Jesus’ famous saying: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matt 7:15-16).
However, since Muslims may think that verse has been “corrupted”—the accusation of tahrif being commonplace when wanting to avoid biblical debates—Botros also went on to quote from none other than Ibn Taymiyya himself, radical Islam’s most favorite son, in regards to the characteristics of prophets.
According to Sheikh al-Islam’s Minhaj Al Sunna Al Nabawayya, Taymiyya said that false prophets, such as Musailima the Liar, were exposed by the fact that they were liars, oppressors, and possibly possessed by demons and jinn. However, when sober minded individuals studied their lives and deeds, they were able to discern that they were false prophets, that they were exposed.
After reading the relatively long quote from Taymiyya, Botros put his book down, looked directly at the screen, and flatly said that everyone of those negative characteristics indicative of false-prophethood mentioned by Taymiyya in fact apply to Muhammad. As but one example, he pointed to the fact that, even though the Taymiyya excerpt condemned lying, Muhammad himself justified lying in three circumstances—during war, to reconcile people, and husband to wife.
As for oppressive qualities of false prophets, Botros, reading from Sunan Al Bayhaqi, revealed to the viewers that Muhammad, after raiding innocent villages, would take into concubinage women he found desirable, and then send off to be sold in the market less than attractive women as well as children. With the money he’d make from this slave trade, he would purchase war horses and weaponry, in order to conquer other villages.
After reading such accounts, the good priest again put the books down, looked directly into the camera, and asked the predominantly Muslim viewers: “Does this sound like a real prophet to you? Remember: Ye shall know them by their fruits.”
Botros next considered what he called “Muhammad’s sexual escapades.” After listing them—all which should be famous by now to Jihad Watch readers—he proceeded to read from Kitab Al Tabaqat A Kubra, quoting a Muhammadan hadith, wherein the latter said “Of this world, the most things Allah has made me love are”—here Botros interjected with “What? Salvation of souls?! Doing good to others? What?!” only to continue quoting Muhammad’s conclusion—”women and perfume,” the latter to lure the former.
As for the second characteristic Botros listed as being indicative of prophethood—making sacrifices on behalf of others—the Coptic priest listed some biblical examples, such as Paul saying “I will very gladly spend and be spent for you; though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved” (2 Cor 12:15). He also pointed to the “ultimate sacrifice” of Jesus. Here, his co-hostess objected saying that Jesus was not a prophet, but Son of God, to which the father roared “I’m speaking according to their beliefs!”
He then looked at the viewers asking, “So, what ‘sacrifices’ did Muhammad make?” He confessed he knew of none, but instead read various quotes of Muhammad asking others to sacrifice themselves for him and his religion—in the jihad and as shuhada—promising them a sensual heaven in return, one filled with sexual orgies and rivers of wine.
He next moved on to the final point, the final characteristic of a prophet: dedicating one’s life to God, exhibited by a life of good deeds, advocating peace, and above all love. He spend some time insisting that a prophet should lead mankind to love God unconditionally, so that believers would want to worship God voluntarily, not as an act of obsequiousness or fear.
He quoted from John 14:21: “He that has my commandments, and keeps them, he it is that loves me: and he that loves me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.”
“Well, what of Muhammad? What was his approach to making humanity worship their Maker?” Botros insisted that Muhammad, doing away with grace and love as typified by the New Testament, tried instead to usher mankind back to an era of law and fear. “Instead of love and mercy, Muhammad brought death and punishments.”
As example, he read from al-Shinqiti’s works an entire chapter dedicated to proving that in Islam, whoever refuses to perform the obligatory prayers should be killed. Writes Shinqiti: “Those who refuse to pray, stand above them with a sword or stick, and command them—’Pray!’—and if they refuse, smite them until they either pray or die.”
Finally, Father Zakaria Botros closed the program with an overall comparison of the life and deeds of Jesus and Muhammad, the founders of the two largest religions. He said that Jesus’ words and life example would lead to peace on earth, and mercy, whereas the words of Muhammad and his life example—here he quoted several Koranic verses, such as 9:5, 9:29, and 8:60—lead only to warfare and terrorism.
“Jesus came to save souls, Muhammad came to sacrifice the souls of others in order to create a worldly empire for himself.”
At the end of the program, Botros revealed the end poll results regarding the question “Was Muhammad a messenger from God or Satan?” 89% said Satan, 11% said God.
If the spirit of Islam is a demonic one then Christians should start organizing a world-wide exorcism. Oh, but wait, all the leaders of the biggest denominations in the West believe Islam should be honored as one of the great religious traditions of the world (to quote numerous modern popes). The devil behind Islam is small compared to the devil behind Modernism. As far as I can tell the only thing worse than Islam is the Modernist Church.
I agree with you about what you said about modernism.
In all honesty though, Western interpretations of Christianity being called “Christian” is debatable.
Exorcisms are for Roman Catholics. They are NOT for True Bible believing Christians who do not pray to a dead demon named Mary but abide by the LAW that ONLY JESUS is the one and only Mediator between man and God.
The Lord Himself performed an exorcism. Who are YOU to condemn them??
“When [Jesus] arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two DEMON-POSSESSED men coming from the tombs met him…He said to them, “GO!” So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water.” (Matthew 8: 28-32)
Do you realize that it was only because of the Virgin Mary’s virtue that the Redeemer was ever born into the world? How dare you insult the Mother of God so shamelessly! Is it not her whom we are told “all generations shall call…blessed?” (Lk. 1:48). Did not St. John the Baptist leap in the womb upon hearing her voice (Lk. 1: 44). Did not Christ honour her with the miracle at Cana (John 2: 4)?
Your church is a death cult. It is fake Christianity. Babylonian paganism.
And your “Mary” is a demon. The mother of Jesus was NEVER divine, never Holy. Just an ordinary girl.
But you sick people pray to her instead of Jesus Christ. Your church is a demon worshiping entity . And there is NOT one Queen of Heaven. Your church is perfectly described in Revelation 17 as the Harlot and the Mother of Abominations. Your church is the home of the Whore of BAbylon. Welcome to satanism you brain washed nutcase.
“Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? “. Jesus put Mary in her place. She was just another sinner, blessed by God.
If you want to see the commonality between the left (communists) and Satan and Islam, climate worship (paganism), pro abortion, destroying gender, truth, anti-merit, and so forth, look to the creator of the left, Karl Marx. He had a history of Satanism and was the devil’s tool to trick humanity into creating a “utopia on earth” without God. Hence how lesbian, transgenders can find common cause with Islamofascist terrorists in Gaza.
Raymond Ibrahim, 89% said Muhammad is from Satan — how much of that 89% of his audience is (was) Muslim? He broadcasts to the Islamic world, I gather. If his audience is mainly Muslim, 89% is remarkable. I also wonder about the polling method.
By the dictum of
the Bible, then, let us consider the disorders that manifest themselves
in the person possessed by the Devil :
1. Screaming aloud owing to the affliction of the brain (Mark 1:24,
Luke 9:39, John 10:20)
2. Suicidal tendency (Mathew 9,18:17, 15:32, Mark 5:13, Luke 8:33)
3. Tendency to walk naked (Luke 8:2, 8:35)
4. To be pushed aside by the Devil (Mathew 17:15, Mark 1:26, 9:18,
9:20, 9:26)
5. Dumbness (Mark 9:25, 9:32, 12:22, Luke 11:14)
6. Deafness (Mark 9:25)
7. Blindness (Mathew 12:22)
8. To see that which others do not and to know that which others
don’t (Mark 1:24, Luke 4:3, Mathew 8:29)
None of the symptoms of the one possessed by the Devil, which
are described in the Bible, is seen in the person of Muhammad (e).
One of the evidences cited by those who allege that Muhammad (pbuh)
was possessed by the Devil has been his own statement that the divine
revelation sometimes came to him in the form of the ringing of a bell
and that this form of revelation was the hardest for him. Another
evidence cited has been the saying of Aysha (r), the wife of the Prophet,
that she saw beads of perspiration on the forehead of the Prophet
when the revelation came upon him on a very cold day. Here, there is
an important question that is to be considered. Does the Bible say, in
any place, that the one possessed by the Devil feels the ringing of a
bell in his ears or that his forehead is dampened with the wetness of
perspiration even in extreme cold? If it does not, then what, indeed, is
the basis on which the followers of the Bible allege satanic possession
against the Prophet?
Those who say that the divine message received by the Prophet
was the production of a Devilish possession, are, in fact, actually
forced to say that their own holy men are themselves possessed by
the Devil.
‘St. Paul’ had been the one who had actively laboured to destroy
Jesus as well as the ideals that he propagated (Acts of the Apostles
9:1, 26:10, 8:1) as long as he remained on the earth, after which it was
that he came forward with the claim that Christ had appeared to him
in a vision. Observe the description in the Bible of the way in which he
had received this vision of Christ: “As he neared Damascus on his
journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He
fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why
do you persecute me?’
‘Who are you, Lord ?’ Saul asked. ‘I am Jesus, whom you
are persecuting.’ He replied. ‘Now get up and go into the city,
and you will be told what you must do.’
The men travelling with Saul stood there speechless, they
heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the
ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So
they led him by the hand into Damascus. For three days he was
blind, and did not eat or drink anything.” (Acts of the Apostles
9:3-9)
We have seen that the Bible indicates the falling down to the
ground, seeing that which others do not see and hearing that which
others do not hear as being the symptoms of a devilish possession. In
the incident wherein Paul claimed that he saw Christ, he had
experienced all these symptoms too. But will the Christian world
accept it if it was now claimed that Paul himself had been possessed
of the Devil? The Christian critics will never be able to produce even
a single shred of evidence from the Bible to conclusively assert that
Muhammad (e) was possesed by the Devil. On the other hand,
however, it can be shown, using the Bible, that Paul, the real founder
of the present-day Christian faith, had been subjected to the
insinuations of the Satan. Then who is it, now, who was actually
possessed of by the Devil ?
Now, examine the very corner-stone of the Christian allegation
that the Qur’an had come to be written because of the Satanic influences
that moved Muhammad (e). After all, it has been only because of the
Qur’anic denunciation of the concept of salvation through the
crucifixion of Jesus Christ that the Qur’an has been alleged to be a
satanic creation. What, then, is the reality? Both Christians and
Muslims believe that Jesus was of a pure and unblemished character.
Both groups are agreed upon the fact that he had been appointed by
God Almighty Himself. Further still, both affirm that he was not
possessed by the Devil. If such is the case, then why should we not
compare the teachings of Jesus Christ with those of Paul and
Muhammad (e) in order to analyze as to who it was – Paul or
Muhammad (e) – who was afflicted by the insinuations of the Satan.
For any person in receipt of a revelation from the Devil must, of a
necessity, be an enemy of Jesus; going by the consideration that the
antagonist of a messenger from God will naturally be the antagonist of the message that he conveys.
Jesus said: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the
Law or the prophets” (Mathew 5:17)
The Qur’an says, “It was We who revealed the Torah (to
Moses): therein was guidance and light.” (5:44)
“And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: ‘O Children
of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (Sent) to you, confirming
the Taurat (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of
messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.’” (61:6)
Paul had written, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the
Law.” (Galatians 3:13)
“By abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments
and regulations.” (Ephesians 2:15)
Jesus said that he came not to destroy the law; the Qur’an, too,
says the same. As for Paul, he contends that Jesus had come to save
the world from the law. Who indeed, is the one who recieved the
revelation of Satan ?
Jesus Christ had never taught that he was God. (Mark 12:29,
Mathew 4:10). The Qur’an, too, reiterates this beyond the shadow of
a doubt. (3:51). But Paul had stated thus, “Who, being in very nature
God, did not consider equality with, God something to be grasped.”
(Philippians 2:6) and “He is the image of the invisible God, the
first born over all creation.” (Colossians 1:15). Jesus had never
received any revelation that stated that he himself was God. Even if
he did receive such a revelation, he would certainly have made it
known. But Paul seems to have received a ‘revelation’ declaring Jesus
to be God. Whence, indeed, must that ‘revelation’ have proceeded ?
The Bible described the circumcision as a covenant which God
had made with Abraham. The Lord had instructed Abraham about the
circumcision as follows: “As for you, you must keep my covenant,
you and your descendants after you for the generation to come.’”
(Genesis 17:9-14). The Bible quotes God as having told Moses, “‘On
the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.’” (Leviticus 12:3).
Jesus, too, had observed this divine commandment: “On the eighth
day, when it was time to circumcise him …..” (Luke 2:21) Jesus
had never instructed anyone against the circumcision. This had been
for the simple reason that he had never received such a revelation in
the first place. But observe what Paul says: “…. if you let yourselves
be circumcised Christ will be of no value to you at all.” (Galatians
5:2). Whence did Paul receive this ‘revelation’ ? Of a certainty, not
from God,if not, then where from indeed?
The major reason behind the allegation that Muhammad (e)
had his revelations from the Devil has been that the Qur’an refuted
the crucifixion and salvation of humanity through the sacrifice of a
single individual. There are numerous verses in the Qur’an wherein
Jesus and his mother have been praised and have found the most
reverential mention. It may also be remembered that Maryam has been
the only woman to be referred by name in the Qur’an. The Qur’an
further describes even the miracle wrought through Jesus which has
not been recorded in the Bible like his having breathed life into birds
of clay (3:49). The incident wherein the baby Jesus had spoken from
his cradle which the Qur’an describes (19:30) is not mentioned
anywhere in the Bible. There is nothing in the Qur’an that serve to
tarnish the lofty character of Jesus. Here it is especially relevant that
according to the Gospel of John, the first miracle of Christ had been
that he had produced wine at a marriage function in Canaan (John
2:1-11). There is, however, no such reference in the Qur’an.
The Biblical concept has been that “… anyone who is hung
on a tree is under God’s curse.” (Deuteronomy 21:23). The Jews
had thought that they had had Jesus accursed by way of impaling him
onto the cross. Paul, too, says the same thing. “Christ redeemed us
from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is
written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’” (Galatians
3:13). It follows from this that the crucifixion has only served to make
of Jesus an accursed person. But the Qur’an does not accept the idea that Jesus had become so accursed for the sins of the whole world.
How can anyone believe that God never heard the prayer of Jesus
which he made in order that he be saved from the accursed wooden
cross (Mathew 29:39) without believing in the very rejection of divine
mercy to Jesus? The Qur’an, however, teaches that God had, by way
of saving Jesus from the accursed wooden cross, undermined the
conspiracy of the Jews. (4:157,158)
The Jews contend that Jesus had become accursed by way of
his being impaled upon the cross.
Paul contends that Jesus had become accursed by way of his
dying upon the cross.
The Qur’an contends that God saved Prophet Jesus from the
cross.
Which among these is the revelation of the Satan? Is it the one
which glorifies Jesus or is it the one which makes of him an accursed
person?
In short, therefore, the stark reality is that those who strive to
produce proofs to the effect that the Qur’an’s has been a satanic revelation, have kept falling into the pitfalls of their own making.
The life that Jesus led and what he taught as the founder of Christianity is in direct contradiction to anything Muhammad taught or lived by.
Christ didn’t say killing & lying were bad, except when…
See the difference?
Asides from the religiosity of this article- did you not grasp a single substantive aspect?
That’s why true Islam is for sycophants.
As far as I know, this article doesn’t claim that Muhammad was “possessed” by the devil. There is a big difference between possession (as of a demon or the devil) and being a prophet FOR the devil. One can be a prophet for Satan without even the clear and conscious knowledge that it is happening. Remember always that Satan is the father of lies and deception, and those arts are never more strongly applied than to those who serve him, either willingly or not.
You are attempting to refute the thesis of this article and this claim by introducing a completely irrelevant thesis and then arguing against it. This is called a “straw man” argument, and is considered weak and ineffectual rhetoric by most in the realm of philosophical and theological debate.
Thanks for playing, though.
I love the way Muslims argue. In the report above the author was discussing Mohammed and why he thought Mohammed was acting on behalf of satin. Now you start to discuss Paul. Why? What Paul did or was does not have any baring on Mohammed. Paul being possessed by satin does not make Mohammed any better and certainly does not make the Koran any less of a satanic revelation. You have not managed to show in any of your arguments that the Koran is Gods word. Either you cannot do this or you agree that it satanic.
In God there is no darkness at all. Darkness hates light. God is the light of the world and in Him there is no darkness. Satan is the prince of darkness and no light is found in him. Mohamed was a tool of Satan filled with hatred, bitterness, a pedophile which is accepted in the Koran and a murderer who came into power in approximately 600 A.D..
He was a the answer to the fallen Lucifer’s mockery of Christ. Mohamed is definitely a son of Satan.
In God there is no darkness at all. Darkness hates light. God is the light of the world and in Him there is no darkness. Satan is the prince of darkness and no light is found in him. Mohamed was a tool of Satan filled with hatred, bitterness, a pedophile which is accepted in the Koran and a murderer who came into power in approximately 600 A.D..
He was a the answer to the fallen Lucifer’s mockery of Christ. Mohamed is definitely a son of Satan.
I say he was a messenger from Satan, and the evil is spreading.